3 ms·

We have been agressively terraforming the earth into a form less accomodating of current complex life for some time now, and we show no signs of slowing. That's

We have been agressively terraforming the earth into a form less accomodating of current complex life for some time now, and we show no signs of slowing. That's the whole problem

gizmo686 3y ago
Agressively? We increased CO2 concentration by about 200 parts-per-million (a factor of about 2x), and increased the average temperature by about 1-2°C. Rain patterns are slightly different. Ocean PH levels dropped by about 0.04 . Sure, given how delicate the biosphere is, these small changes have a significant effect. However, if we look at Earth on the same scale as any other object in the solar system, the environment on Earth today is almost identical to the environment on Earth 1,000 years ago. The atmosphere is about 1023 millibars; 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and 0.04% everything else. Liquid water covers most of the surface, with an active water cycle causing water rain to occur periodically over much of the planet. The temperature change is so small, that we would not notice it if it were on any other planet in the solar system, and it is far below the noise floor of day-to-day variance
- robocat 3y ago
  They might be talking about farmland. For example, pastures, agriculture and forestry in New Zealand has approximately zero in common with the native flora & fauna that was here before humans modified the environment. The native plants that remain are virtually all in areas that are simply too uneconomic to farm in any way (usually mountainous). ~55% of New Zealand is being used for sheep and cattle, and another 8% for exotic forestry. We also eat an extraordinary amount of the fish and seafood in the world from the ocean. “The global per capita consumption footprint in 2011 is estimated at 27 kg. Our estimate is higher than the 18.6 kg reported in FAO statistics for the same year, as it also takes into account the indirect use of capture fisheries production by the fishmeal sector.” “the conversion of wild-capture fish that would not be used for human consumption into fishmeal and subsequent use as aquafeed, results in an overall increase in human consumption of fish”. “31% of the world's wild fish stocks are estimated to be overfished, 58% fully exploited”.
- codersfocus 3y ago
  Yes aggressively. Raising the average (I don't understand why you'd bring up noise when discussing average) temperature of the entire Earth by 1-2 degrees C in a period of 100 years, from 1 single organism is remarkable. Any why specify CO2 as if that's the only thing we're polluting with? What about methane? Remember when we disrupted the ozone layer? What about pollution with plastics, and industrial chemicals in land and water? And don't forget that the Earth is more than willing to enter a negative feedback loop -- she will take that 1-2 degree increase in temperature and say "I heard you like warm weather, so I'm gonna release all this trapped methane and CO2 from my frozen parts and let you have it too."
  - sclarisse 3y ago
    If we want to make the temperature on Mars like the one on Earth, it’s not going to take 2C and a feedback loop. It’s going to take like 75C.
    - eastof 3y ago
      This is such a dangerous perspective. Why would we want to make the temperature on Mars like the one on Earth!?! We already have 7 Billion people here to take care of and we're already witnessing mass heat, flooding, and famine deaths from climate change. People focusing on colonizing Mars when we have such an immediate problem to address TODAY are delusional and actively endangering the most vulnerable people in the world.
      - ordu 3y ago
        I believe that your reasoning misses one crucial detail: we do not exactly know how to climate control a whole planet, we have almost no experience with that. Attempts to terraform Mars allow humans to try some things and to see what happens. It will allow to make our models of climate more precise. For now our understanding of a climate based on observational studies. Not a controlled experiment. So when we start to do something having some climatic goals in mind, we'll start to learn a lot. And it would be better for Earth if we started with Mars. Though we have no time, but it doesn't seem a sufficient reason not to try get at least some experience from terraforming Mars. It may reduce risks.
- mcguire 3y ago
  "Globally agricultural land area is approximately five billion hectares, or 38 percent of the global land surface. About one-third of this is used as cropland, while the remaining two-thirds consist of meadows and pastures) for grazing livestock." https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/
- RGamma 3y ago
  https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
- throwway120385 3y ago
  That 1-2 degree C change is enough to cause mature trees all over my US state to start dying of heat stress every year. So yes, it seems warranted. I've never seen anything like it in my 37 years on this earth.
- taneq 3y ago
  Yeah and we’ve done that in a couple of hundred years. On geological time scales that’s more or less instant.

We have been agressively terraforming the earth into a form less accomodating of current complex life for some time now, and we show no signs of slowing. That's the whole problem

gizmo686 3y ago

Agressively? We increased CO2 concentration by about 200 parts-per-million (a factor of about 2x), and increased the average temperature by about 1-2°C. Rain patterns are slightly different. Ocean PH levels dropped by about 0.04 . Sure, given how delicate the biosphere is, these small changes have a significant effect. However, if we look at Earth on the same scale as any other object in the solar system, the environment on Earth today is almost identical to the environment on Earth 1,000 years ago. The atmosphere is about 1023 millibars; 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and 0.04% everything else. Liquid water covers most of the surface, with an active water cycle causing water rain to occur periodically over much of the planet. The temperature change is so small, that we would not notice it if it were on any other planet in the solar system, and it is far below the noise floor of day-to-day variance

robocat 3y ago
They might be talking about farmland. For example, pastures, agriculture and forestry in New Zealand has approximately zero in common with the native flora & fauna that was here before humans modified the environment. The native plants that remain are virtually all in areas that are simply too uneconomic to farm in any way (usually mountainous). ~55% of New Zealand is being used for sheep and cattle, and another 8% for exotic forestry. We also eat an extraordinary amount of the fish and seafood in the world from the ocean. “The global per capita consumption footprint in 2011 is estimated at 27 kg. Our estimate is higher than the 18.6 kg reported in FAO statistics for the same year, as it also takes into account the indirect use of capture fisheries production by the fishmeal sector.” “the conversion of wild-capture fish that would not be used for human consumption into fishmeal and subsequent use as aquafeed, results in an overall increase in human consumption of fish”. “31% of the world's wild fish stocks are estimated to be overfished, 58% fully exploited”.
codersfocus 3y ago
Yes aggressively. Raising the average (I don't understand why you'd bring up noise when discussing average) temperature of the entire Earth by 1-2 degrees C in a period of 100 years, from 1 single organism is remarkable. Any why specify CO2 as if that's the only thing we're polluting with? What about methane? Remember when we disrupted the ozone layer? What about pollution with plastics, and industrial chemicals in land and water? And don't forget that the Earth is more than willing to enter a negative feedback loop -- she will take that 1-2 degree increase in temperature and say "I heard you like warm weather, so I'm gonna release all this trapped methane and CO2 from my frozen parts and let you have it too."
- sclarisse 3y ago
  If we want to make the temperature on Mars like the one on Earth, it’s not going to take 2C and a feedback loop. It’s going to take like 75C.
  - eastof 3y ago
    This is such a dangerous perspective. Why would we want to make the temperature on Mars like the one on Earth!?! We already have 7 Billion people here to take care of and we're already witnessing mass heat, flooding, and famine deaths from climate change. People focusing on colonizing Mars when we have such an immediate problem to address TODAY are delusional and actively endangering the most vulnerable people in the world.
    - ordu 3y ago
      I believe that your reasoning misses one crucial detail: we do not exactly know how to climate control a whole planet, we have almost no experience with that. Attempts to terraform Mars allow humans to try some things and to see what happens. It will allow to make our models of climate more precise. For now our understanding of a climate based on observational studies. Not a controlled experiment. So when we start to do something having some climatic goals in mind, we'll start to learn a lot. And it would be better for Earth if we started with Mars. Though we have no time, but it doesn't seem a sufficient reason not to try get at least some experience from terraforming Mars. It may reduce risks.
mcguire 3y ago
"Globally agricultural land area is approximately five billion hectares, or 38 percent of the global land surface. About one-third of this is used as cropland, while the remaining two-thirds consist of meadows and pastures) for grazing livestock." https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/ https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/
RGamma 3y ago
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
throwway120385 3y ago
That 1-2 degree C change is enough to cause mature trees all over my US state to start dying of heat stress every year. So yes, it seems warranted. I've never seen anything like it in my 37 years on this earth.
taneq 3y ago
Yeah and we’ve done that in a couple of hundred years. On geological time scales that’s more or less instant.